Also it's well established that viral infections can trigger regression in children with mitochondrial disorders. Even the CDC admits that:

Q: Do vaccines cause or worsen mitochondrial diseases?

A: As of now, there are no scientific studies that say vaccines cause or worsen mitochondrial diseases. We do know that certain illnesses that can be prevented by vaccines, such as the flu, can trigger the regression that is related to a mitochondrial disease. More research is needed to determine if there are rare cases where underlying mitochondrial disorders are triggered by anything related to vaccines.

BabbittnounBab·​bitt | \ˈba-bətA narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority.

Sivad wrote:Yeah, the expert opinion of a preeminent authority on the subject. It's not conclusive but it's more than enough to show that all the babbitts have been behaving like total jackasses.

Expert opinion in science is shyt, it is the equivalent of "she said, he said" and it is the lowest possible quality of evidence there is other than mere speculation or brainstorming.I have no problem with people talking about science or research, in fact, I love it. But if you going to do it at least have the decency to learn a little bit before you go spewing lies.

Sivad wrote:Yeah, the expert opinion of a preeminent authority on the subject. It's not conclusive but it's more than enough to show that all the babbitts have been behaving like total jackasses.

No, arguments from authority are not evidence. They are logical fallacies.

Now, if you think this guy is correct when it comes to the relationship between vaccines and autism, then you agree with his findings that the MMR vaccine and thimerosal do not cause autism.

And this is separate from the claim that vaccines can cause fever which then cause neurological problems in certain people.

Now as far as I can tell, Zimmerman has outlined a possible causal chain (i.e. vaccines causes a fever, which then causes symptoms like autism in certain kids who have pre-existing mitochondrial disorders) and thinks he has observed it. However, as of right now, there has not been any study or rigourous examination of this hypothesis.

XogGyux wrote:Expert opinion in science is shyt, it is the equivalent of "she said, he said" and it is the lowest possible quality of evidence there is other than mere speculation or brainstorming.I have no problem with people talking about science or research, in fact, I love it. But if you going to do it at least have the decency to learn a little bit before you go spewing lies.

And if the said expert can comprehend and participate in all levels of ‘evidence’ as displayed on this chart, and are in fact analysts of the data, doesn’t that make their opinion not “shyt”?

ness31 wrote:And if the said expert can comprehend and participate in all levels of ‘evidence’ as displayed on this chart, and are in fact analysts of the data, doesn’t that make their opinion not “shyt”?

The opinion of the "expert" becomes worthless once quality data becomes available. There are 2 scenarios. The expert agrees with the high-quality evidence (e.g. randomized trial) in which case his opinion is merely symbolic and ultimately worthless. or 2. the expert disagrees with the evidence, in which case chances are the expert is wrong as he/she is in contradiction with high-quality evidence and it is not unlike claiming that the earth is fact despite high quality evidence to the contrary. For instance, there are people out there that hold a PHD titles claiming the earth is flat or evolution is false.The evidence that vaccines are generally safe is quite overwhelming and the association (and much less, causal effect) has been analyzed and does not exist.

ness31 wrote:And if the said expert can comprehend and participate in all levels of ‘evidence’ as displayed on this chart, and are in fact analysts of the data, doesn’t that make their opinion not “shyt”?

Maybe, but in this particular case, even the expert has clearly stated that there is no further evidence beyond his own opinions and observations.

So this kid was sick, had previously had negative reaction to vaccines and was given a vaccine anyway . . . hmmm So if a kid with a peanut allergy was running a fever and we gave him a pb&J and he became retar . . . autistic we would try to ban peanuts?

Perhaps getting to the bottom of how prevelent “underlying mitochondrial diseases” are would be the next useful step in the debate. I’m just going on a whim here, but mitochondrial disease sounds like shit going wrong at a very basic cellular level...like aging ffs. And then, to be really fucking controversial, I’d study how many of these kids with adverse reactions were a product of IVF.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No, arguments from authority are not evidence. They are logical fallacies.

Expert opinions are evidence, that's why they're used in courts. Appeal to authority is only fallacious if the authority isn't an actual authority or if the authority is presented as conclusive proof.

Logic isn't your strong suit, you should just stick to obtuse denial, logical fallacies are too advanced for you.

Now, if you think this guy is correct when it comes to the relationship between vaccines and autism, then you agree with his findings that the MMR vaccine and thimerosal do not cause autism.

The case specific finding?

Now as far as I can tell, Zimmerman has outlined a possible causal chain (i.e. vaccines causes a fever, which then causes symptoms like autism in certain kids who have pre-existing mitochondrial disorders) and thinks he has observed it. However, as of right now, there has not been any study or rigourous examination of this hypothesis.

He's done case studies.

BabbittnounBab·​bitt | \ˈba-bətA narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority.

No it is not. Expert opinion is just opinion. The evidence is evidence.

that's why they're used in courts.

No. Evidence is used in court. Expert witnessed are used to help explain how evidence can be interpreted to laypeople. Furthermore, courts is really not the gold standard for science as they overall are not very good at utilizing evidence. For instance, eye-witness testimony... which sucks and it is given weight in court as if it didnt.

Logic isn't your strong suit, you should just stick to obtuse denial, logical fallacies are too advanced for you.

LOL ignorant Buffon criticizing someone else's logic and calling out logical fallacies when you yourself fall short of a 3-year-old toddler.

He's done case studies.

Again... I'll refer you to the chart I posted a few hours ago. A case study is pretty shit as far as evidence goes. A case study (or even a handful of them) and the "expert" opinion of 1 crazy guy compared to the bulk of evidence that we do have is like coming to a race on a VW Beetle driven by a half-blind grandpa against Michael Schumacher driving a Bugatti Veyron.

What? The expert clearly stated that it's well accepted in his field.

Then the expert is fking retarded because it is not "well accepted" in his field. Unless he is talking about the field of conspiracy theories. In which case... he might be right.

Suntzu wrote:So this kid was sick, had previously had negative reaction to vaccines and was given a vaccine anyway . . . hmmm So if a kid with a peanut allergy was running a fever and we gave him a pb&J and he became retar . . . autistic we would try to ban peanuts?

I don't believe the idea is about banning anything. It is about being aware of the harmful side effects, so one can make an informed decision.

XogGyux wrote:No it is not. Expert opinion is just opinion. The evidence is evidence.

Your own stupid little infographic classifies expert opinion as evidence. It's not direct observational evidence but it's definitely evidence. The expert opinion is based on a qualified, competent assessment of the evidence so it is definitely evidence in itself. The only question is how much weight to give it and I'm not looking for much, all I need is plausibility to show that the babbitts are all up their own asses.

Again... I'll refer you to the chart I posted a few hours ago.

You need to refer to your chart.

Then the expert is fking retarded because it is not "well accepted" in his field. Unless he is talking about the field of conspiracy theories. In which case... he might be right.

Here's another expert in the field with the same opinion:

"I also find, with a high degree of medical certainty, that the set of immunizations administered to Yates at age 11 months while he was ill was the immediate cause of his autistic regression because of the effect of these immunizations to further impair the ability of his weakened mitochondria to supply adequate amounts of energy for the brain, the highest-energy consuming tissue in the body." —Dr. Richard Kelley, Professor of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University (Kennedy Krieger Institute)

BabbittnounBab·​bitt | \ˈba-bətA narrow-minded, self-satisfied conformist with an unthinking deference to official orthodoxy and institutional authority.

Sivad wrote:Your own stupid little infographic classifies expert opinion as evidence. It's not direct observational evidence but it's definitely evidence. The expert opinion is based on a qualified, competent assessment of the evidence so it is definitely evidence in itself. The only question is how much weight to give it and I'm not looking for much, all I need is plausibility to show that the babbitts are all up their own asses.

In its most strict definition, the evidence is not opinion, not even from experts. This is why it is at the very bottom of the chart. Why it even shows up at all in the chart? well because the chart is designed to be used to teach medical students the hierarchy of importance and evidence and it is convenient to show it. That does not mean it is evidence. In any event, even if you want to consider it as evidence, it is at the VERY FKING BOTTOM and we have PLENTY OF FUCKING HIGH-QUALITY EVIDENCE THAT DESTROYS YOUR PUNY CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Here's another expert in the field with the same opinion:

"I also find, with a high degree of medical certainty, that the set of immunizations administered to Yates at age 11 months while he was ill was the immediate cause of his autistic regression because of the effect of these immunizations to further impair the ability of his weakened mitochondria to supply adequate amounts of energy for the brain, the highest-energy consuming tissue in the body."—Dr. Richard Kelley, Professor of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University (Kennedy Krieger Institute)

Congratufkinglations, you managed to find to wacko cookoo doctors that are willing to talk some idiocy in exchange for a little bit of attention.Here is the statement of the American Academy of pediatricians that represent 60+ thousand pediatric doctors.

Vaccines are safe. Vaccines are effective. Vaccines save lives.

Claims that vaccines are linked to autism, or are unsafe when administered according to the recommended schedule, have been disproven by a robust body of medical literature. Delaying vaccines only leaves a child at risk of disease. Vaccines keep communities healthy, and protect some of the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, and children who are too young to be vaccinated or have compromised immune systems.

Forget 60k pediatricians, find me just 1k pediatricians that say that vaccines can cause autism... You can't because it isn't true. You are full of shit.

Godstud wrote:So, essentially, only under certain rare circumstances when vaccines are administered, do they possibly cause autism.

Yeah... when mercury is in retrograde, and all the "prime" number planets in our solar system are aligned with the sun and Proxima Centauri. Only then if you place the vaccine on a child and say in front of the mirror "autism, autism, autism" in quick repetition in your creepy voice and crack a fertilized chicken egg on top of frog's intestines is that you can get autism from a vaccine.